butterflyl1on:


Expect another red herring.

hopefulLandlord:

This is fallacious, one doesn't need to provide a counter hypothesis to reject another hypothesis
this is why the court of law deals with "Guilty and not guilty"

They don't go "Mr iamwhat, we've found you not guilty of the charges brought against you, therefore Mr Danvon is guilty of those charges instead" The connection of your innocence is unrelated to Mr Danvon's

If Mr iamwhat is innocent someone must be guilty of the crime charged against Mr iamwhat

danvon:
Maybe I should rephrase the question , you don't know a crooked line until you see a straight line, what ideology are you comparing with when you say creation is false you must have a better idea

The problem with your analogy is that it assumes creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, a crooked line cannot be straight and crooked at the same time but creation and evolution can both be true

I think this is the biggest problem with most theists as they start with the assumption that evolution totally negates creation so they keep looking for ways to invalidate evolution and pretend that by doing that they've proven creation (most likely their flavour of creation) is true. This is what philosophers call "False Dichotomy Fallacy"

danvon:
If Mr iamwhat is innocent someone must be guilty of the crime charged against Mr iamwhat

EXACTLY!!!! now you're learning fast!!!
The judge won't start searching for who's guilty before establishing your innocence, your innocence is established regardless of the judge providing the guilty party or not

hopefulLandlord:


The problem with your analogy is that it assumes creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, a crooked line cannot be straight and crooked at the same time but creation and evolution can both be true

I think this is the biggest problem with most theists as they start with the assumption that evolution totally negates creation so they keep looking for ways to invalidate evolution and pretend that by doing that they've proven creation (most likely their flavour of creation) is true. This is what philosophers call "False Dichotomy Fallacy"

Red herring Alert!

Since you are now trying to drift to neutrality as usual are you now saying that parts of the creation story may be true as well as parts of the evolutionary story?

You are an atheist so focus on answering questions from your perspective and not speaking for theists. The questions you are being asked are specifically seeking to know your own atheistic truths which counter and show the theistic truths to be untrue.

So do you now claim that parts of the creation story may be true as well as parts of the evolutionary story?

hopefulLandlord:


EXACTLY!!!! now you're learning fast!!!
The judge won't start searching for who's guilty before establishing your innocence, your innocence is established regardless of the judge providing the guilty party or not

There is a reason a JUDGE is called a JUDGE. Nobody judges based on nothing. Something is used to judge something. Something is used to prove truth or expose lies.

Where is yours?

I'm just engaging in this out of boredom which would soon be over

butterflyl1on:


Wrong again. A court of law can find you innocent or guilty based on a pre existing law or ruling on a trial of similar instances.

For you to say you have found something to be untrue this means you did an assessment and comparison and you cannot assess anything based on nothing. There are always existing standards to every assessment.

Here you are trying to throw a red herring at everyone. Where is the truth you have which you used to show others were untrue.?

You do not just provide a hypothesis. On its own a hypothesis is based on something prior to its origination and is always used to test another hypothesis that probably was there before it came and when proven to be true it becomes a law or absolute truth so any and every other hypothesis which comes after it can be assessed using the hypothesis which has now become a law or absolute truth.

You guys are really hitting the nail on the head against brother hopefulandlord...
Weldone!

I can sense a cop out about to occur

Hopefullandlord all these your word Gymnastics and red herrings are always appalling.

You said something is untrue and you were asked to provide HOW you arrived at it being untrue because you must have compared it with something you regard as true. Since then you have turned to a maradona and dribbling like your life depended on it.

1. Show me a fail safe logical approach that cannot be countered.


2. Show me your known truth that proves others to be untrue.

Danvon and iamwhat are we done here?

^^^^

He is now asking if we are done here despite not saying anything sensible but just dribbling himself into a corner upandan

Cop-out loading shaperly

hopefulLandlord:


The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Jainism is dated to 500BC, is 500BC as old as man ?
Many articles dated Jainism to 6th century including wordweb dictionary and my previous knowledge of athiesm dated it to 5th century, how does Jainism's date prove that athiesm is as old as man ?

You example is wrong; We all know that non-christians had been in existence far before Christianity. why did you use such an example ? is just like saying Man is as old as Lionel Messi.....

iamwhat:


Jainism is dated to 500BC, is 500BC as old as man ?
Many articles dated Jainism to 6th century including wordweb dictionary and my previous knowledge of athiesm dated it to 5th century, how does Jainism's date prove that athiesm is as old as man ?

You example is wrong; We all know that non-christians had been in existence far before Christianity. why did you use such an example ? is just like saying Man is as old Lionel Messi.....

Paste the article(s) here and let's scrutinise it

I'm certain Jainism is older than Christianity so I'll like to see your sources

I'll address the other parts of your post afterwards

iamwhat:


Jainism is dated to 500BC, is 500BC as old as man ?
Many articles dated Jainism to 6th century including wordweb dictionary and my previous knowledge of athiesm dated it to 5th century, how does Jainism's date prove that athiesm is as old as man ?

You example is wrong; We all know that non-christians had been in existence far before Christianity. why did you use such an example ? is just like saying Man is as old Lionel Messi.....

I am glad you see the light.

hopefulLandlord:


Paste the article(s) here and let's scrutinise it

I'm certain Jainism is older than Christianity so I'll like to see your sources

This is you now trying to shift the focus of these questions.

You know i know your MOO.

You were asked for your own truths and you have been dodging and provided none.

Now you are demanding that someone else should provide theirs for scrutiny.

SMH. Your dribbling skills are epic.

hopefulLandlord:


Paste the article(s) here and let's scrutinise it

I'm certain Jainism is older than Christianity so I'll like to see your sources

I'll address the other parts of your post afterwards

Jainism

ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/

noun

a non-theistic religion founded in India in the 6th century BC by the Jina Vardhamana Mahavira as a reaction against the teachings of orthodox Brahmanism, and still practised there. The Jain religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures, and is noted for its ascetics.

hopefulLandlord:
I'm just engaging in this out of boredom which would soon be over

Why do you hate God?
Why do you deny and suppress the truth?
There must be a why.

iamwhat:


Jainism

ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/

noun

a non-theistic religion founded in India in the 6th century BC by the Jina Vardhamana Mahavira as a reaction against the teachings of orthodox Brahmanism, and still practised there. The Jain religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures, and is noted for its ascetics.

okay, I think we can agree that you ignored the "BC" that came after "6th Century" so I think it's settled now that I've been correct before, I'll address the other parts next

bloodofthelamb:

Why do you hate God? Why do you deny and suppress the truth? There must be a why.

I don't hate Yahweh, I know Yahweh is imaginary

hopefulLandlord:


I don't hate Yahweh, I know Yahweh is imaginary

Let's put Yahweh aside.

Is God imaginary?

iamwhat, I said I arrived at atheism being as old as man on induction

you then brought Diagoras of Melos and my talking about Jainism is to show that there have been atheists before Diagoras as Jainism (which is a century or more older than Diagoras) absolutely rejects the idea of a creator deity so they're technically atheists and this shows that atheism predates Diagoras

hopefulLandlord:


I don't hate Yahweh, I know Yahweh is imaginary

Back to the I KNOW angle. This means you have a version which you consider as the absolute truth which you used TO KNOW that Yahweh is imaginary so can we have that version?

hopefulLandlord:
iamwhat, I said I arrived at atheism being as old as man on induction

you then brought Diagoras of Melos and my talking about Jainism is to show that there have been atheists before Diagoras as Jainism (which is a century or more older than Diagoras) absolutely rejects the idea of a creator deity so they're technically atheists and this shows that atheism predates Diagoras

Atheism is rejection of deification and not rejection of a CREATOR diety.

Practitioners of Jainism reject a creator God but Believe in God as a perfect being but not a creator. They hold strongly to deification.

hopefulLandlord:

I don't hate Yahweh, I know Yahweh is imaginary

You know or you guess?

bloodofthelamb:

You know or you guess?

did I stutter?

Sexual reproduction helps to improve variation of genes in organisms, it also reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations.

There are unicellular organisms that practice conjugation without any need for an embryo or eggs. While not sexual reproduction strictly speaking, it still involves transfer of genetic information between two individuals.

In fact, all forms of horizontal gene transfer can be seen as sister processes to vertical gene transfer (parent to offspring) and most likely the precursor.

hopefulLandlord:
iamwhat, I said I arrived at atheism being as old as man on induction

you then brought Diagoras of Melos and my talking about Jainism is to show that there have been atheists before Diagoras as Jainism (which is a century or more older than Diagoras) absolutely rejects the idea of a creator deity so they're technically atheists and this shows that atheism predates Diagoras

You're still doing the same thing I corrected earlier, It is true that I unintentionally omitted BC; How does 6th century BC qualifies Athiesm to be as old as man ?
You're still saying things you don't know.

We are already derailing, let's answer the OP's question.

iamwhat:


You're still doing the same thing I corrected earlier, It is true that I unintentionally omitted BC; How does 6th century BC qualifies Athiesm to be as old as man ?
You're still saying things you don't know.

We are already derailing, let's answer the OP's question.

Awesome recovery.

CoolUsername:
Sexual reproduction helps to improve variation of genes in organisms, it also reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations.

There are unicellular organisms that practice conjugation without any need for an embryo or eggs. While not sexual reproduction strictly speaking, it still involves transfer of genetic information between two individuals.

In fact, all forms of horizontal gene transfer can be seen as sister processes to vertical gene transfer (parent to offspring) and most likely the precursor.

I manage to score you 1/100 because you mentioned Sex;
Please answer the question and stop perambulating.

hopefulLandlord:
did I stutter?

Then, how do you come to know that God does not exist?

iamwhat:


I manage to score you 1/100 because you mentioned Sex;
Please answer the question and stop perambulating.

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I detailed similar processes to sexual reproduction that existed before it.

If you know anything about the subject at all, you'll see how that fact shows that gametes in sexual reproduction are just a relatively modern vehicle for gene transfer.

CoolUsername:


You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I detailed similar processes to sexual reproduction that existed before it.

If you know anything about the subject at all, you'll see how that fact shows that gametes in sexual reproduction are just a relatively modern vehicle for gene transfer.

The focus is on HUMANS be it male or female gender BUT HUMANS and not on other so called "similar processess". Even the so called similar processes are still not explained. You simply sited them as an example and not an explanation.

If you knew anything about sexual reproduction you would know that you have said absolutely NOTHING.